hard · LSAT
An advocate for a new urban park observed that every city that built a large central park in the past decade subsequently saw nearby property values rise. The advocate concluded that building a park in our city will likewise raise property values.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider that
- the rising property values may themselves have been what enabled those cities to fund the parks, reversing the supposed direction of influence
- the increase in property values may not be large enough to recoup the long-term cost of maintaining the park
- the advocate is a developer who stands to profit personally from the park's construction
- property values in comparable cities that built no central park climbed during the very same period
- the parks in those other cities may have differed in size and design from the one our city would build
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?